Seeing this last question has been circling in my head, I don't know what to think in my head and what to use my head to think about. It's really confusing.
An articulate lawyer, who was initially set to put his client's interests at the center of everything, when did he get the halo of humanitarian concern and start walking the turbulent land of East Germany.
Do we have to abide by all the rules and put human rights in the highest position, no matter who the other party is, no matter what unforgivable wrongs this person has for us personally or for the country, we must say righteously: "We should give him the rights he deserves, his right to life, the right to speak...
Abel is a spy who came to the United States to steal state secrets during the Cold War. In the eyes of the American people, is such a person worthy of their sympathy? Do people who are not sympathetic have so-called humanitarian feelings? Can resentment and unforgiveness be suppressed by human rights? What about our human rights and our right to speak?
After watching the full movie, I don’t think there is anything particularly exciting. The plot developed too fast, and many emotions could not be expressed.
For the treatment of the arrested spies, the United States hacked the Soviet Union again.
View more about Bridge of Spies reviews
